Is contraception really a settled argument? (2 letters)

Mike Littwin says Mitt Romney’s debate response attacked President Obama’s “(imaginary) war on religion.” Mr. Littwin is living in a world of make-believe if he can’t see this administration’s blatant attack on our religious liberties. Contraception may be a 40-plus-year-old political issue, but the ramifications felt by our society are costing us dearly today and even more in more in the future.

Michelle Webster, Littleton

This letter was published in the March 4 edition.

Mike Littwin claims that the “contraception argument” is out of date, “settled around 50 years ago.” Does Mr. Littwin really believe the present argument is about contraception or is he being disingenuous? The argument is about the First Amendment rights of Catholics. That argument should have been settled in 1791; however, there are people who believe the Constitution is just an old document that we can ignore. Yes, we are being told that the insurance companies will be the ones paying for the contraception coverage. Are the citizens of this nation that gullible?

I am not a Roman Catholic, and I have used contraception. The problem is that a government that can ignore the Constitution can mandate anything. Do we want forced abortions? Should the government euthanize anyone over 70? Why shouldn’t the government require all journalists to eat three green worms every Friday afternoon?

Irene Eggers, Wheat Ridge

This letter was published in the March 4 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Contraception should be a settled issue. Since the mid-1960s, the US Supreme Court has said it is not Connecticut’s concern or the other 49 states’ concern whether or not married or single women use contraception or not. Sounds common sense to me.
But, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul believe it IS a state’s business. They believe that states should have the absolute right to decide to ban contraception. For Ron Paul, that’s part of his libertarianism. For Rick Santorum, that’s part of his assault on everyone who is not straight, or who is straight but does not have sex within a religious marriage solely for the purpose of, and optimally timed for, the production of multitudes of children. For Santorum, male happiness resides in a woman giving him “a quiver full of arrows”, whether the woman wants to or not.
The Obama administration has not declared war on the Roman Catholic Church. It simply tried to say that if Roman Catholic-run universities or hospitals hire from the general public and offer services to the general public, they should follow the same rules as any other business that serves the general public. The University of Colorado, for example, or the School of Mines, or the University of Phoenix or the ITT schools of criminal justice, paralegal training, or what have you, or Rose Medical Center or Denver General Hospital.
The Roman Catholic Church, I believe, endorsed Obama’s health care reform proposals. They have no problems with the general concept of health insurance minimum coverage mandates. Now, all of a sudden, mandating contraception coverage for the staff of hospitals or universities is the Greatest Threat To Roman Catholicism Since Martin Luther.
God literally forbid a woman should control her own fate, eh?

Anonymous

Pete, I read through your argument and most of it was laid out well and made sense, as far as it goes. Of course you wrote things that we disagree about, such as Rick Santorum’s views. But even that point wasn’t off topic. Then, you finish your blog with this point: “God literally forbid a woman should control her own fate, eh?” It is beyond ridiculous to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to control a woman’s fate. They just don’t want to pay for what should be her responsibility to pay for herself.

RabidRadical

And I’m assuming vasectomies and Viagra should also not be covered.

Anonymous

A vasectomy is elective, so no. Viagra is not the same as a contraseptive, so, maybe.

RabidRadical

Nope, Viagra is so a man can have sex. It’s elective, so, no.

Anonymous

Vasectomies are forbidden by the RCC. Noot sure about Viagra though but I’d bet they have less of a problem with that. Personally I never quite understood why that was covered by any of the health plans I’ve had since it hit the market.

RabidRadical

When contraceptives are prescribed strictly for birth control, I’d lump it with Viagra, etc., and it shouldn’t be covered (if we’re going to restrict anything).

Anonymous

The only problem there is that BC could be perscribed under false pretenses. Anyway the problem isn’t with BC or with insurance companies covering it. It’s whether its right or Constitutional to make religious groups pay for it if it is in conflict with their stated dogmas or doctrines I cannot stand Santorum and disagree with him on almost every issue but I agree we are drifting in to sketchy territory when the government can force religious groups to violate their beliefs.. Ideally BC should just be sold over the counter like say asprin and that would solve much of this but I’m not sure either party wants to loosen the regulatory chains required to do that.

Anonymous

This idea of lumping Viagra with contraceptives is lame. Sorry, no other way to put it. But it seems to really get those who make it believe they’ve hit on something.

RabidRadical

Re: comment below; I agree, they should probably be available over the counter–but then, I’m not a physician so I’m not really sure of the ramifications. Given the statistics, I’d say that the “abuse” or “false-pretense” would not be as common as one would think.

Anonymous

I don’t know how comon it mould be but it would exist which is an ethical issue. Where ramifications are concerned if they can talk about selling the morning after pill over the counter I just don’t see whay they cannot start talking about selling other forms over the counter. It doesn’t make a lot of sense but far too often neither side of this debate makes any sense.

RabidRadical

I love the Republican “small government” argument, then turn around and invade the individual’s privacy.

Anonymous

How so?

RabidRadical

They keep telling us that we need to shrink government, then, in the same breath, say that the government has the right to ban medication that a physician has prescribed–in other words, the government is dictating to insurance companies what they can or can’t pay for.

Anonymous

Too vague. Can you give a specific example.

RabidRadical

Sure: requiring an unnecessary medical procedure, which, if it was needed, the doctor would do it anyway after getting informed consent. Why waste time on laws that simple mandate that which is already done, and something that is sound medical practice an that is

Anonymous

You know, I’ve let you and pete and andy and others frame the
conversation about this false idea that Republicans want to invade
women’s bodies. Nice try, but it won’t really help get the conversation
off of Obama and his failed presidency because, if I figured it out,
the public will, too. Your charade has been exposed.

RabidRadical

As has yours. Address the issue, rather than shift the conversation to Obama’s failed presidency. To jog your memory, we were discussing how the republicans are invading women’s bodies by demanding medically unnecessary medical procedures with the misguided opinion that listening to a fetal heartbeat or seeing an image of the fetus will somehow, magically dissuade them of the decision they’ve already arrived at.

Anonymous

Virginia GOP operatives attempted to literally put government into a woman’s sexual organs with their abortion reduction bill, lucky that the amendment failed.

I don’t know how literally invading a woman’s private parts with a sonogram probe can ever be considered otherwise.

Anonymous

Still too vague. How did the bill read. I can’t imagine that would be any more invasive on a female life then the idea of sucking a female life out of the mother’s womb? Talk about a war on women.

Anonymous

Why does the idea of a small weak government fall apart when it must invade a woman’s v gina?

Anonymous

The Constitution forbids any form of religious test for any federal office. But, these days, God forbid a candidate for office who, if asked for his or her religion, says “None of your damned business!” Or, worse “I don’t have one.” God forbid a candidate should not attend a church. How many candidates make a show of going to a church on Sunday, and pretending to be raptly interested, just so he or she doesn’t get harassed about it?
That’s a real assault on religion.
Obama says he’s Christian. But, suppose he really is atheist. So, what? What would it matter? He still has certain stated policies and beliefs about governance. He still has ideas about what he wants to accomplish. How does being an atheist change that?
Whether or not someone is Roman Catholic makes a difference as to whether he qualifies to be a Roman Catholic priest. Whether or not someone believes in the veracity of Joseph Smith’s or Mohammed’s teachings should influence whether the LDS church or a mosque accepts them as spiritual leader.
But, for the office of president of the United States, whether a man or woman believes in one God, twenty gods, or no gods should be completely irrelevant, provided s/he’s not planning on picking my pocket or breaking my leg.

Anonymous

Michele, How have your religious liberties been altered in any way? It is still your choice as to rather or not you choose to use this medication. The gubmit isn’t tying you down and force feeding you birth control pills. How are these pills costing our society dearly and even more into the future.

Irene, the first Amendment rights of catholics are not being violated. Nobody is forcing you to take birth control pills. You live in a secular nation, not a theocracy. If catholics want to be involved in healthcare, they must recognize not everyone that works for their organizations, including their own flock, agrees with their archaic notions of controlling women.

There couldn’t be a better time for a single payer system in this country than now.

Robert_f58

Has everyone forgotten the word ‘FREEDOM’ You are free to do what you want as long as it dosen’t hurt anyone else. Let each person make his/her own choice in what is right for them.

andyandy

Time for single-payer.

They don’t have these ridiculous arguments in Canada, do they?

RabidRadical

Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Anonymous

Do you subscribe to Canadian newspapers or watch Canadian TV. They may have just such arguments, or worse considering the currently use government funded insurance. I’m not ready to assume that all Canadians love their form of health care. Are you?

andyandy

I don’t assume anything. I talk to Canadians, Do you?

Anonymous

Do you talk to them when they come here to get medical treatment that they have to wait in line for up there?

55Computer55

Contraception is for people who want to have sex, not children. No contraception is for people who want children. As an adult you should have no trouble separating the two.

Anonymous

BS!

Contraception is used wisely by couples that are smart enough to plan their families.

As an adult you should have no trouble separating the two.

TLC

The issue is not contraception. The issue is religious freedom. Obama issued a presidential fiat that redefined religious service organizations as “secular” or “business” organizations, despite the long tradition in this country of recognizing these organizations as religious in nature and thus protected under the First Amendment. According to Obama, the primary benefit we will get from his plan is that Georgetown law students can afford to have an active sex life. I wonder if people suffering from heart disease or cancer have the same priorities: why not take the billions to be spent on contraceptives and provide these people with care? Why not start there instead of making the sex lives of female college students a national priority?

Apparently, only about two percent of American women have never used BC. Obama seems intent on getting that last two percent on the pill. I must ask: Why? Is that two percent worth shutting down Catholic hospitals if they fail to comply with Obama’s mandate? Are people receiving medical care in these hospitals simply less important than a female law student? To Obama, apparently they are less important.

Anonymous

Your religious freedom is not being violated. Nobody is forcing you to take birth control pills.

This is about religion zealots and republicans controlling women.

TLC

It’s about Obama forcing religious institutions to pay for something they believe is morally wrong.

andyandy

Obama is doing no such thing. Tell the truth.

His “compromise” addresses and solves that problem. This is a war against women.

TLC

I do tell the truth. You just have a hard time recognizing it, just as you have a hard time recognizing the compromise changes nothing.

Anonymous

If Religious institutions choose to be involved in the healthcare industry, they need to understand that they are providing care to many people that don’t share their archaic views on certain social issues. For far too long now, healthcare in this country has been sexist. Whenever a private organization, rather it be religious in nature or not, is excluding a certain class of people for whatever reason then I have no problem with the government stepping in to right that particular wrong.

In this case, since companies of certain sizes are required to offer health insurance to their employees, then it only makes sense to offer insurance that benefits both men and women. Insurance companies are secular in nature so they should be required to carry benefits including birth control. Insurance companies are fine with this mandate since it saves them money in the long run. It’s cheaper to provide birth control pills as opposed to care for an unplanned pregnancy or perhaps surgery to remove an overy, uterine cysts, hysterectomies, pain medication, etc. Most companies also recognize that when their workers are staying healthy and taking preventative measures such as birth control for many other conditions other than just preventing pregnancy, they are more productive.

There couldn’t be a better call for a single payer system in this country than right now. The Christian taliban has no right to tell their female employees how they should be handling their healthcare. Religious organizations are not paying for this medication. Women pay for it at a discount because it is now offered through insurance companies, much like many other medications available on discount through these companies.

This has nothing to do with attacking religious freedom and everything to do with controlling women. If you can’t see that then I can’t help you.

TLC

The problem is that Obama unilaterally re-defined what does and does not constitute the free exercise of religion. For Obama, religion consists solely of ministerial activities–healing the sick doesn’t count. Churches, however, view charitable activities, or providing health care to the sick, as part of their religious calling. The government agreed until Obama issued his fiat. Now the local soup kitchen is a “secular” activity–giving free soup to the hungry is the same selling Chevies. If these get shut down, where will this poor turn? To the government? Will that increase welfare costs?

It’s seem wise for the government to encourage these activities but Obama instead wants to put a roadblock in their way. All so Sandra can get her pills. As to medicine being sexist, you’re right–it hugely favors women. The US spends about twice as much on health issues that affect women as those that affect men. We spend about ten times as much on breast cancer as prostate cancer. And now there’s one more area that favors women–no copays for BC pills. Still, I understand your point: if you can’t force the Catholic church to pay for your BC pills, you’re oppressed. Do you think you could force them to pay for my dates? That way I could have a little more fun in life.

And, yes, this is about religious freedom because it’s about forcing your beliefs on the Catholic church. You don’t want them to force their beliefs on you, so don’t force your beliefs on them.

Anonymous

Apparently religious freedom involves hand wring, and tut tutting that women are having sex and that it is possible that some of these women are having sex without intending to have children.

Such women of low “values” should not skate off into the world of carnal pleasures on a religious fellas’ dime.

But is the dime from the religious fellow’s pocket? Really? Rush called one woman an S-word because she testified that insurance companies paying for BC Pills saves money in the long term. That her health lies between her and her doctor.

This leads to headlines everywhere, however it is not a “war on women”, that idea is too outdated, generalized, and misleading. It is a “war on women having sex” plain and simple.

TLC

If you want badly enough to have sex with a woman, you’ll figure out a way to pay for that condom. Or birth control pill. All without asking the local priest to pony up the dough. After all, it’s your responsibility, not his.

Anonymous

Well in this intensely personal subject, I must declare that I would shell out the coin for a condom. No big deal, and even beyond that, I’d not expect the woman I love to take the pill for my convenience.

BC pills are poison, hormones that fool her reproductive system. If she wants to take it for whatever reasons, those are her decisions, a privilege that comes with the plumbing. This extends to all of her decisions, and as a male, that is none of my business for any woman, especially the woman I love.

The local priest is not ponying up anything except his own sexual frustration with his own personal vows. It is the Insurance company the Church contracts in it’s voluntary business ties that covers her Rx.

Got it?

TLC

Obama wants to force the Catholic church to pay for BC. The Catholic church has priests. Ergo, he and you want the priest to pony up the dough.

And be honest. You don’t want to have to pay for it.

Anonymous

Says who?

You repeat the already discredited lies as if your bubble depends on it.

As the dude said at Obama’s first SOTU, “YOU LIE!”

Anonymous

Where are local priests ponying up the dough for birth control?

Perhaps if the church wants to continue to control women then it’s time for them to be taxed accordingly. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

TLC

Uh, just check with Obama. That’s his plan, anyway.

Anonymous

90% of health plans cover contraception now. So, this isn’t a controversy about access to contraception. The Catholic Church doesn’t want to pay for something that flies in the face of what they teach. Why make the Catholic Church go against their conscience?

Anonymous

“The catholic church doesn’t want to pay for something that flies in the face of what they teach.”

Then perhaps they shouldn’t be involved in healthcare, which is secular by nature. Catholics are not the only ones that work or go to Catholic run hospitals.

It is widely known that many Catholics ignore the archaic birth control nonsense conservative catholics push on their flock. How do you explain organizations like Catholics for choice? Birth control pills are not just used for birth control, but you already know that.

We all have to pay for things we don’t like or approve of. I grow weary of my tax dollars being used to fuel Mexican drug cartels, the war on drugs, endless wars in the middle east, subsidies for oil companies, Dick Cheney’s pension plan, etc.

This issue over birth control wouldn’t even be an issue if we had single payer in this country.

Anonymous

Health care isn’t secular by nature. Health care and religion are intertwined and have been for centuries dating back to the establishment of hospitals in the Byzantine Empire which were run by the Church(a model later copied by Muslims and Western Europeans). Even before that health care had religious ties. Ever read the Hippocratic Oath? It had references to Demeter right in it(it also had a clause prohibiting the taker from terminating a pregnancy at one point). None the less the RCC has been deeply involved in health care for centuries as its seen as part of their mission in the world. To claim otherwise is to ignore history and is utter nonsense.

Anonymous

We live in a secular nation where there is a separation of church and state, obviously for a good reason. History is not being ignored here.

The Catholic church needs to bring itself into the current century and end their backwards sexist practice of trying to control women.

TLC

Perhaps it does, but it’s not the government’s role to bring them into the current century. Just because you don’t like the Catholics gives you no right to dictate what they believe or do. Freedom is you acting as you believe and the Catholics acting as they believe.

Anonymous

Very true. I know of someone who began using a GYN because others in her office recommended him. He was supposedly a specialist in hormonal GYN problems (I never saw such a license or certificate on his walls by the way). Too bad he worked at a catholic owned hospital. He did not advocate BCP for her polycystic ovarian syndrome which by definition causes cysts. She developed a huge cyst on one ovary which he still did not put her on BCP for even though the cyst could see it on ultrasound. When he finally recommended surgery to remove the cyst it was a third of a liter in size…(huge)….. it had destroyed a fallopian tube. That has compromised her future ability to get pregnant which would have been a problem with PCO to start with. By the way, the GYN did not do the surgery at the catholic hospital where his office was located. The GYN moved the surgery to the secular community hospital. Thank heavens that there was one in town at all. Just think of what would have been destroyed if the cyst had been allowed to continue to grow or had ruptured and caused an infection. That woman was my daughter. I went to some of her appointments. I was disturbed by what I considered to be inadequate treatment for the cyst. I looked up recommended treatments and not prescribing BCP was not one of the options. Of course, as an adult it was her choice to follow the doctors recommendations. To me it was (is) malpractice on his part to not follow the recommended protocol for PCO cysts. He works at a catholic hospital. It does not take a rocket scientist to follow the trail here.

Anonymous

Thor, I can believe that 90% of insurance companies cover Viagra/Cialis.
But, I highly doubt 90% cover women’s contraception. I’ve seen others here state 50%. Proof, please? I think you’re confusing insurance coverage with the fact that 90% of women use contraception at some point in their lives.
If it were 90%, the pro-life movement would be blocking the doors of health insurance companies, disrupting their annual meetings, having Rush Limbaugh call health insurance companies “pimps”, etc.

FedUpWithExtremism

Because if little boys could get pregnant, the church would be handing out birth control and abortions like they were candy.

Anonymous

If you want to be taken seriously, then don’t make such a far out argument. And why do you assume that only the church is against this stupidity of an employer having to pay for contraception?

Anonymous

How is this a far out argument? The christian taliban in this country are sexists. If men were the ones having abortions, they’d be throwing keggers and passing out contraception at the door.

Employers shouldn’t have to pay for their employees healthcare anyway. That is why we need to move to a single payer system in this country.

TLC

If men got pregnant, abortion would be outlawed. In case you haven’t noticed, women have all the reproductive rights–well, men have a couple, but nothing like those enjoyed by women.

andyandy

I support your right to have an abortion if you wish, TLC.

Anonymous

You are so beyond help.

I pity you.

Anonymous

“Why make the Catholic church go against their conscience.”

You’re right. They should continue this backwards outdated practice of trying to control women and should continue to protect those priests that molest children.

Fine idea.

Anonymous

You know, I’ve let you and pete and andy and others frame the conversation about this false idea that Republicans want to invade women’s bodies. Nice try, but it won’t really help get the conversation off of Obama and his failed presidency because, if I figured it out, the public will, too. Your charade has been exposed.

Anonymous

Republicans for years have been trying to control women and homosexuals. What do you call that failed legislation in Virginia about invading a woman’s vagina to shame her because she may be considering an abortion? How about passing legislation to forbid gays to marry? I thought all you conservatives were for smaller government yet you show your true colors when you can’t seem to keep your noses out of the bedrooms and healthcare of America. These are just but a few of the reasons I left the GOP well over 20 years ago.

You can try to skirt the issue by making this about how Obama but in reality, all you’ve done is secure him a second term.

Your charade has been exposed.

TLC

I just find it interesting that Obama believes the most pressing medical problem we face today is insuring that female law students have access to birth control. I would have thought there were more important issues, such as making sure children suffering from cancer receive the care they need, whether their parents can afford the treatment or not. But that’s way down on Obama’s list while BC for female college students is Number One.

andyandy

I find it interesting that you presume to speak for Obama, as if he couldn’t express himself.

andyandy

We neither need, nor ask for your permission to tell the truth, Thor.

Anonymous

That’s refreshing, since I don’t feel the need to give it. Now that we’ve cleared that up, it doesn’t change the fact that the gigs up. You’ve been exposed and now we can get back to the real issue, religious freedom.

RobtF777

If Liberals want to fund the “Means of Sexual Pleasures” such as birth control, contraceptives, abortions, and Viagra…..let THEM do so.

But please abide by the so-called “separation of church and state” and “Leave The Church and Other Religious Institutions Out Of Funding the Sins Of The Liberals.”

FedUpWithExtremism

Oh Robt, I doubt it’s all liberals that are taking Viagra. In fact I’d bet that the vast majority of Viagra users are nice, uptight conservatives that like to tell women what they should and shouldn’t do with their bodies. I have no scientific proof of course, just using simple common sense.

Anonymous

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but conservatives use birth control.

And the only way these women can get these pills is to force the local nun who runs a soup kitchen for the poor to pay for them?

RabidRadical

Of course not. Since these pills are used for other, non-contraceptive purposes, they need to be available to all who need them. And they should be covered by all insurance.

TLC

So let’s leave the nun out of it, even if she doing something “secular,” like feeding the hungry.

FedUpWithExtremism

TLC, I’d call you an idiot, but that wouldn’t be kind to idiots.

FedUpWithExtremism

If religious institutions do not wish to abide by the same rules as other employers then perhaps they should give up their tax payer funding and tax free status. Otherwise, they should provide the same benefits that other employers are required to provide. This is no assault on religion, it is an assault on women’s health and anyone of you that say otherwise is a liar.

odin

Sinfulness? What a creepy and pathetic statement. The 78% of single women who voted for Obama last time may be 95% by the time the hypocritical old men are done.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...